VOL. XCIV, NO. 247
★ MOAT STOCKS & COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGES ★
PRICE: 0 CENTS
Friday, December 26, 2025
NVIDIA Corporation
NVDA · Nasdaq Stock Market
Weighted average of segment moat scores, combining moat strength, durability, confidence, market structure, pricing power, and market share.
Request update
Spot something outdated? Send a quick note and source so we can refresh this profile.
Overview
NVIDIA is primarily a data center accelerated computing company: ~88% of FY2025 revenue came from Data Center, driven by AI compute and networking platforms. Its core moat is the CUDA-based full-stack software ecosystem and deep integrations, reinforced by broad availability across major server makers/cloud providers and millions of developers. Scale also helps NVIDIA secure leading-edge foundry/packaging and memory capacity via prepayments and long-lead planning. Gaming remains the largest secondary business with strong RTX/DLSS ecosystem effects, while Professional Visualization and Automotive are smaller, more competitive adjacencies.
Primary segment
Data Center
Market structure
Quasi-Monopoly
Market share
78%-85% (estimated)
HHI: —
Coverage
5 segments · 6 tags
Updated 2025-12-26
Segments
Data Center
Data center accelerated computing (AI GPUs, systems, and networking)
Revenue
88.3%
Structure
Quasi-Monopoly
Pricing
strong
Share
78%-85% (estimated)
Peers
Gaming
Discrete GPUs and gaming platforms for PC gaming (add-in boards, notebooks, and cloud gaming)
Revenue
8.7%
Structure
Duopoly
Pricing
moderate
Share
92% (reported)
Peers
Professional Visualization
Workstation GPUs and professional 3D/visualization platforms (RTX + Omniverse)
Revenue
1.4%
Structure
Oligopoly
Pricing
strong
Share
—
Peers
Automotive
Automotive AI compute platforms (ADAS/AV and infotainment) from cloud training to in-vehicle deployment
Revenue
1.3%
Structure
Competitive
Pricing
weak
Share
—
Peers
OEM & Other
OEM component sales and other revenue (residual category)
Revenue
0.3%
Structure
Competitive
Pricing
none
Share
—
Peers
—
Moat Claims
Data Center
Data center accelerated computing (AI GPUs, systems, and networking)
FY2025 revenue by end market (Form 10-K): Data Center $115,186M of $130,497M total (table is in $ millions). Source: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1045810/000104581025000023/nvda-20250126.htm
Data Workflow Lockin
Demand
Data Workflow Lockin
Strength: 5/5 · Durability: durable · Confidence: 4/5 · 2 evidence
CUDA programming model + extensive libraries/SDKs/APIs create software/workflow switching costs for AI and accelerated-computing workloads.
Erosion risks
- Framework abstraction reduces CUDA-specific code
- ROCm and open-source toolchains improve portability
- Hyperscalers push software layers for custom accelerators
Leading indicators
- ROCm/alternative backend adoption in major AI frameworks
- CUDA developer count and toolkit adoption trend
- Production deployments of large models on non-NVIDIA accelerators at hyperscalers
Counterarguments
- Many AI users operate at the framework level (e.g., PyTorch), reducing direct CUDA dependency
- Large customers can absorb porting costs when economics justify a switch
Ecosystem Complements
Network
Ecosystem Complements
Strength: 5/5 · Durability: durable · Confidence: 4/5 · 2 evidence
Broad platform availability across server OEMs/CSPs plus a large developer base and partner ecosystem compounds adoption and integration.
Erosion risks
- Hyperscalers increase investment in custom ASICs
- Open interconnect standards reduce proprietary platform advantages
- Competitors close performance gaps and improve software
Leading indicators
- Cloud instance availability for non-NVIDIA accelerators
- Hyperscaler capex allocation to custom ASIC vs GPUs
- Growth in third-party software stacks targeting non-NVIDIA accelerators
Counterarguments
- Ecosystem strength depends on continued performance leadership and reliable supply
- Big tech can steer developer tooling toward in-house accelerators
Capacity Moat
Supply
Capacity Moat
Strength: 4/5 · Durability: medium · Confidence: 4/5 · 3 evidence
Scale enables NVIDIA to secure leading-edge wafer, advanced packaging, and memory supply via prepayments/capacity agreements-important when supply is constrained.
Erosion risks
- Foundry/packaging capacity expansions reduce scarcity
- Suppliers prioritize other large customers or diversify allocation
- Geopolitical disruption in Asia-Pacific supply chain
Leading indicators
- Advanced packaging/HBM lead times and industry capacity additions
- NVIDIA disclosed prepayment/capacity commitment trends
- Competitor shipment growth relative to NVIDIA in AI accelerators
Counterarguments
- Capacity is not exclusive; suppliers also serve competitors
- If demand normalizes, capacity advantage may fade quickly
Gaming
Discrete GPUs and gaming platforms for PC gaming (add-in boards, notebooks, and cloud gaming)
FY2025 revenue by end market (Form 10-K): Gaming $11,350M of $130,497M total (table is in $ millions). Source: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1045810/000104581025000023/nvda-20250126.htm
Ecosystem Complements
Network
Ecosystem Complements
Strength: 4/5 · Durability: medium · Confidence: 4/5 · 1 evidence
Large installed base and broad RTX/DLSS application/game support incentivize developers to optimize for NVIDIA features, reinforcing adoption.
Erosion risks
- Competitors gain share with price/performance improvements
- Console and cloud gaming reduce discrete GPU demand
- Standard graphics APIs reduce reliance on vendor-specific features
Leading indicators
- Discrete GPU share trends (JPR, Steam surveys)
- Adoption rate of RTX/DLSS features in new game launches
- GeForce NOW subscriber and usage growth
Counterarguments
- Game developers often prioritize cross-vendor standards (DirectX/Vulkan), making proprietary features optional
- Consumer demand is cyclical and price-sensitive
Operational Excellence
Supply
Operational Excellence
Strength: 3/5 · Durability: medium · Confidence: 3/5 · 1 evidence
Longstanding software/driver optimization and feature cadence (e.g., RTX, DLSS, GeForce Experience) improves performance and user experience beyond raw hardware.
Erosion risks
- Driver/software differentiation narrows as competitors improve
- More workloads shift to generic upscaling and open standards
Leading indicators
- Relative performance-per-watt leadership across GPU generations
- User-reported driver stability metrics and review trends
Counterarguments
- Software advantages can be copied over time
- AIB/OEM channels can shift marketing focus based on margins and availability
Professional Visualization
Workstation GPUs and professional 3D/visualization platforms (RTX + Omniverse)
FY2025 revenue by end market (Form 10-K): Professional Visualization $1,878M of $130,497M total (table is in $ millions). Source: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1045810/000104581025000023/nvda-20250126.htm
Design In Qualification
Demand
Design In Qualification
Strength: 4/5 · Durability: medium · Confidence: 4/5 · 1 evidence
ISV optimization and certification for critical professional workflows increases qualification friction and switching costs for workstation users.
Erosion risks
- ISVs expand optimization/certification for competing GPUs
- Cloud-based rendering/workstations reduce local GPU dependency
Leading indicators
- Breadth of ISV certifications for NVIDIA vs competitors
- Workstation GPU shipment share and average selling prices
Counterarguments
- Some professional users can trade down to cheaper GPUs if performance needs are met
- Segment is smaller and can be deprioritized versus Data Center
Ecosystem Complements
Network
Ecosystem Complements
Strength: 3/5 · Durability: medium · Confidence: 3/5 · 1 evidence
RTX support across major 3D design and content creation applications plus Omniverse ecosystem reinforces platform preference.
Erosion risks
- Competitors improve ray tracing + AI tooling
- Open standards reduce differentiation of graphics features
Leading indicators
- Omniverse enterprise subscription adoption
- ISV feature releases that prioritize competing GPU backends
Counterarguments
- Graphics workloads rely on standard APIs; differentiation may be less sticky than CUDA in AI
Automotive
Automotive AI compute platforms (ADAS/AV and infotainment) from cloud training to in-vehicle deployment
FY2025 revenue by end market (Form 10-K): Automotive $1,694M of $130,497M total (table is in $ millions). Source: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1045810/000104581025000023/nvda-20250126.htm
Suite Bundling
Demand
Suite Bundling
Strength: 3/5 · Durability: medium · Confidence: 3/5 · 2 evidence
End-to-end DRIVE platform bundles in-vehicle compute, OS, modular software stack, and simulation-reducing integration work for OEMs and enabling OTA feature upgrades.
Erosion risks
- Automakers build in-house stacks or multi-source vendors
- Safety/regulatory delays slow AV rollouts
- Strong competition from automotive-focused silicon vendors
Leading indicators
- Number/size of announced DRIVE design wins
- Automotive segment revenue growth and backlog indicators
- Regulatory progress and autonomy adoption milestones
Counterarguments
- Auto programs are long-cycle and price-sensitive; OEMs can switch on new vehicle platforms
- Competitive solutions exist with strong OEM relationships and automotive-grade roadmaps
Design In Qualification
Demand
Design In Qualification
Strength: 3/5 · Durability: medium · Confidence: 3/5 · 1 evidence
Automotive-grade safety and ecosystem qualification can create switching friction once a platform is designed into a vehicle program.
Erosion risks
- OEMs standardize on alternative compute platforms
- Platform fragmentation across regions and regulations
Leading indicators
- Automotive platform adoption by tier-1 suppliers
- Certification milestones and safety compliance updates
Counterarguments
- Qualification is meaningful but not permanent; new vehicle generations can reset platform choices
OEM & Other
OEM component sales and other revenue (residual category)
FY2025 revenue by end market (Form 10-K): OEM and Other $389M of $130,497M total (table is in $ millions). Source: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1045810/000104581025000023/nvda-20250126.htm
Residual / non-core revenue
Demand
Residual / non-core revenue
Strength: 1/5 · Durability: fragile · Confidence: 4/5 · 1 evidence
This bucket is small and mixed; it is not primarily driven by a durable moat and can fluctuate based on channel dynamics and one-off items.
Treated as non-core: OEM & Other is a very small share of total revenue in FY2025.
Erosion risks
- Channel inventory swings
- Pricing pressure in commoditized OEM channels
Leading indicators
- OEM & Other revenue trend
- Channel inventory indicators
Counterarguments
- No meaningful moat is expected for this residual category
Evidence
...including the CUDA parallel programming model, the CUDA-X collection of acceleration libraries, APIs, SDKs, and domain-specific application frameworks.
Direct support for the 'software stack + developer workflow' lock-in mechanism.
CUDA has in essence become the industry standard
Third-party characterization of CUDA as a standard layer, reinforcing portability/switching-cost dynamics.
Our computing platforms are available from virtually every major server maker and CSP, as well as on our own AI supercomputers.
Shows broad platform distribution across the supply chain (OEMs/CSPs), reinforcing ecosystem complements.
There are over 5.9 million developers worldwide using CUDA and our other software tools...
Quantifies developer scale supporting network/complement effects.
We utilize foundries, such as Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited, or TSMC, and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., or Samsung, to produce our semiconductor wafers.
Identifies critical upstream dependencies relevant to capacity constraints (foundry).
Showing 5 of 19 sources.
Risks & Indicators
Erosion risks
- Framework abstraction reduces CUDA-specific code
- ROCm and open-source toolchains improve portability
- Hyperscalers push software layers for custom accelerators
- Hyperscalers increase investment in custom ASICs
- Open interconnect standards reduce proprietary platform advantages
- Competitors close performance gaps and improve software
Leading indicators
- ROCm/alternative backend adoption in major AI frameworks
- CUDA developer count and toolkit adoption trend
- Production deployments of large models on non-NVIDIA accelerators at hyperscalers
- Cloud instance availability for non-NVIDIA accelerators
- Hyperscaler capex allocation to custom ASIC vs GPUs
- Growth in third-party software stacks targeting non-NVIDIA accelerators
Curation & Accuracy
This directory blends AI‑assisted discovery with human curation. Entries are reviewed, edited, and organized with the goal of expanding coverage and sharpening quality over time. Your feedback helps steer improvements (because no single human can capture everything all at once).
Details change. Pricing, features, and availability may be incomplete or out of date. Treat listings as a starting point and verify on the provider’s site before making decisions. If you spot an error or a gap, send a quick note and I’ll adjust.